A veneer anchor is a device which anchors veneer masonry relative to an adjacent stud wall or dry wall. Veneer anchors provide stability for the brick wall and its interior stud wall construction throughout the 100 or more year life of the brick wall and its respective building.
Veneer anchors typically consist of two parts, a plate and a tie. The plate is secured to the stud wall, and an end of the tie is fastened to the plate. The other end of the tie is set in mortar between bricks and the veneer masonry to anchor the veneer masonry to the stud wall.
The Abbott U.S. Pat. No. 4,738,070 discloses one type of veneer anchor. The anchor includes a base plate with a relatively large space formed between inwardly turned sides. A tie for cooperating with a base plate consists of a pair of legs which are spaced apart to permit a lateral compression of the legs toward each other to clear the legs from contact with the inwardly turned sides without causing the legs to contact each other.
One of the problems with a masonry wall tie unit such as the Abbott unit is that it fails to prevent a lateral movement of the tie relative to the base plate. Such a lateral movement is undesirable because wind driven brick walls may force one of the legs of the tie to disengage from its respective inwardly turned side. In fact, the Abbott patent by its very design encourages such a disengagement by spacing the legs apart to permit compression of the legs.
Another type of anchor is shown in the White U.S. Pat. No. 1,878,921, which is entitled "Anchor" and issued on Sept. 20, 1932. The anchor "relates to means for supporting or anchoring walls, ceilings or other elements of a building to concrete walls, ribs or floors." (See pg. 1, lines 1-4). An object of the anchor "is to provide simple means for insuring the formation of a properly shaped undercut slot in the concrete." (See pg. 1, line 5-8.
The anchoring device of White includes an undercut slot with outwardly flared, lower margins resting on a form (indicated at 19 in the White patent). According to White, a superimposed weight on the undercut slot will tend to spread the sides rather than compress them and any pressure on sides of the undercut slot will be resisted because the outwardly flared margins are resting on the form. (See pg. 1, lines 51-67 and 90-94).
The slot of White cooperates with an anchor consisting of a length of wire doubled on itself to provide an eye, legs arranged in parallelism, and oppositely bent ends of the legs. (See pg. 1, lines 70-75). On the one hand, White provides that "the thickness of the wire will be such that it fits snugly within the pocket so that there is no possibility of play between the anchor and the pocket or undercut slot". (See pg. 1, lines 75-79). On the other hand, White states that "the legs will be normally slightly flared requiring compression in order to seat them in the positions shown in the drawing". (See pg. 1, lines 79-83).
White fails to disclose or suggest an anchoring device mountable to the flat surface of a stud wall. Moreover, White neither discloses or suggests fastening the anchoring device to such a flat surface with conventional devices such as nails or screws. Instead, White discloses an undercut slot which is set in concrete and which will not close upon the hardening of the concrete.
Furthermore, the prior art fails to recognize the problem that wind driven brick walls may undesirably force a movement of the brick wall relative the stud wall. White discloses that "the thickness of the wire will be such that it fits snugly . . . with no possibility of play," and that "the legs . . . be normally slightly flared requiring compression in order to seat them"[emphasis added]. (See pg. 1, lines 75-82). Such language indicates that White failed to recognize the problem of lateral movement of the legs relative to each other and relative to the undercut slot.